|
Paper Kaiju posted:It's likely because those players don't really enjoy playing aggressive area-control games, but either don't realize that they don't (because of lack of experience with the genre or simply a lack of self-analysis), or they don't want to be the person who has to veto or sit out of the game everyone else wants to play. Paper Kaiju posted:It's less pearl-clutching and more eye-rolling, because people who make a big fuss about it tend to assume that people who don't are ignorant of issue or ignorant of history, when most of us have long since figured it out and have simply reconciled the issue one way or the other. I am both reconciled to the idea that many of my favorite games involve metaphorically exterminating my dad's side of my family and able to be interested in exploring anticolonialist board games.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just curious, what part of Ta-Seti encourages turtling? Black red looks balls to the wall powerful, but I don't remember all of the new tiles or the priest track bonuses. They're probably talking about the extra VP you can get by progressing your priest to Ta-Seti.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:They're probably talking about the extra VP you can get by progressing your priest to Ta-Seti. There's also a new power tile that's a defensive version of Initiative (attacker loses two people whenever they attack you) as well as a creature that makes the troop it's attached to immune to out of combat losses (such as Rain of Fire or Initiative). Also the tile that let's you recruit new units onto any space you occupy, allowing you to replenish a flagging territory directly instead of having to move them in from your city. It's nothing overtly major, and I'm not expecting the sky to fall, it just feels like some of the new abilities they're including run counter to Kemet's overall encouragement towards aggressive play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:There's also a new power tile that's a defensive version of Initiative (attacker loses two people whenever they attack you) as well as a creature that makes the troop it's attached to immune to out of combat losses (such as Rain of Fire or Initiative). Also the tile that let's you recruit new units onto any space you occupy, allowing you to replenish a flagging territory directly instead of having to move them in from your city. It's nothing overtly major, and I'm not expecting the sky to fall, it just feels like some of the new abilities they're including run counter to Kemet's overall encouragement towards aggressive play. I think they'll only be a problem in low player count games, in higher counts like 4/5 i don't think anyone is going to let you snag all the strong tiles on your own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I think that sounds like some nice balancing changes (Initiative is ridiculously strong) without changing the aggressive nature of the game. If someone wants to turtle at a temple they're missing out on additional VPs from attacking. I almost always use both move actions to attack because permanent VPs are much better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Well... I guess we've got this down to the core misunderstanding at least. But experienced players don't just look at individual trades, they look at the meta and quickly realize what you are doing. The three opponents in this scenario would see you gaining and embargo you. I have also found that people don't like to conspire to trade with only one other person either, in four player games it just forces your opponents into an alliance with each other, and in three players games its just cruel and unsporting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Don't play Catan. Play a better game. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:But experienced players don't just look at individual trades, they look at the meta and quickly realize what you are doing. The three opponents in this scenario would see you gaining and embargo you. I think you mean, if you pull ahead then people will stop trading with you? Which, yeah, they will. But you'll be ahead. If the dice don't go your way and you don't pull ahead, then no one cares about embargoing you. The implicit caveat to jmzero's argument is that you only count the people who are still contenders to win the game. If Jim is basically out of the running, you can trade with him for free, even if the trade is more beneficial to him than you; you just don't care. If Jill is winning then you don't trade with her because best case it's going to come down to a head to head contest between you and her, and equal trades just shorten the endgame and let her close the deal. (Obviously if the trade is much better for you than for Jill then you would do it, but she won't, so it's moot.) But among equals, the math works out as above. McNerd fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
quote:But experienced players don't just look at individual trades, they look at the meta and quickly realize what you are doing. The three opponents in this scenario would see you gaining and embargo you. So they'd see you're gaining and they'd stop trading with you? Read the first part of that sentence again - you're gaining. Even if they eventually cut you off, it was still the right play. And what does it mean to "embargo" you if the core good strategy is not trading anyway? And are they embargoing you because you're gaining in trading or because you're doing well in general? I mean, surely they also might not trade with you if you have a bunch of cities and stuff on the board. Does that mean building cities is a bad strategy? Maybe you should purposefully trap yourself in a corner at the start of the game... you know, so people won't see you as a threat. Maybe you should ONLY trade if it's terrible for you. Political games can indeed have perverse incentives to play poorly (and thus "fly under the radar" or some stupidity), but in order to play that game you at least have to understand what "normal" effective play looks like. You can't base your whole strategy in Bizarro-world purposefully-suck town. If you're suggesting to "only trade if it helps me more than my opponent" because you know that that spuriously dumb logic will get you behind, and that it will thus perversely help you later because people won't robber you... well, you at least have to make that clear. The core reality is that trading is often mutually beneficial in Catan, so you should expect to see lots of it in normal play, as the people who do more of it will tend to get ahead. The idea that "you should only trade if you benefit more from that trade than your trade partner" is popular and sort of intuitive, but is also wrong. quote:I have also found that people don't like to conspire to trade with only one other person either, in four player games it just forces your opponents into an alliance with each other, and in three players games its just cruel and unsporting. Well, with 3 players you also eventually want to betray your partner so you beat him too, so it should balance out... but maybe players don't like that either (politics is divisive as well as being terrible in so many other ways). In any case, I'm not talking about what people like doing (as others have discussed, lots of people like playing games in ways that tend to end with them losing), I'm talking about what strategies are effective. And if you consistently play a game terribly because you don't like it's central mechanics, then why not just play something else where you can have fun while trying to win? jmzero fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Don't play Catan. Play a better game. Problem solved. I've taken to suggesting Terra Mystica or Archipelago when catan comes up. Seems to be working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
You are thinking and posting way too hard about a dumb game. Oldstench posted:Don't play Catan. Play a better game. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You are thinking and posting way too hard about a dumb game. They're playing right into Rutibex's hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:They're playing right into Rutibex's hand. They are all having fun. Isn't that the important thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:BUT it doesn't long for the skill level to get to where you can assume every trade will be as good for him as it is for you. All you do is help the other guy. But those foreign ports...they dont get points, and you don't have to do the mental gymnastics of value assessments. Just hand over sone poo poo and get what you want in return. This is still very wrong. If I make a trade that gives opponent A a boost of 1.2 and me a boost of 1, then another trade that gives player B a boost of 1.4 to my 1, I've just given both my opponents trades that were better for them than they were for me, but I ended up ahead of both of them since I got a total benefit of 2. If I see two of my opponents considering a trade which is roughly 1:1 for them, it is to my benefit to take either side of that deal even though I might get less out of it. Maybe I only get 0.3 to my opponent's 1. That is still much better than letting them trade and both pull ahead. Trading is hugely beneficial. I don't play catan much these days, but when I did, I would win the most often out of my group, and I typically made the most trades. It is counter-intuitive, but when you make lots of trades that help your opponents more than you, you end up better off as long as you spread the love around. Use your brain and demand more out of trades with the frontrunner and be more generous with people behind you. Proactively insert yourself to break up trades as long as they don't damage your position. "You could give him the brick for a sheep, but he'll use it to finish his new settlement and pull farther ahead. I'll make the same trade but I don't even have any wood to use it with." Catan is a game of dealing and trading and if you don't do it, you won't win. Edit: partly beaten, but oh well. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:You are thinking and posting way too hard about a dumb game. I'm more interested in the general theory of political/trading games, and why it does or doesn't apply to Catan as an example case. Virtually this whole discussion could have been about, say, Bohnanza. The only really Catan-specific point I saw was Rutibex saying, Catan has a high proportion of really terrible lopsided trades that act as beginner traps. Which as far as I know might be true, but ok, you rule those out and you're back to the same basic idea where trading appears to be a crucial part of keeping up. Full disclosure: I generally suck at these games so if there's something I'm not getting, I'm very keen to find out. McNerd fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think that sounds like some nice balancing changes (Initiative is ridiculously strong) without changing the aggressive nature of the game. If someone wants to turtle at a temple they're missing out on additional VPs from attacking. I almost always use both move actions to attack because permanent VPs are much better. Which is where Mercenaries come in, as they allow you to maintain three troops or two legions at full strength. If you go the former route, you can hold two temples and attack. Also there's the promo tile that awards double permanent VPs for controlling two temples, if you have that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
All this talk is really making me hate the fact that everyone I've tried to play Kemet with hates it solely because they can not wrap their head around the idea of winning a battle while still losing more troops than the loser
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Looks like CSI just cut prices across the board by about 10%, seems to be their new thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:
Now THAT is broken. Jesus. I've been having fun playing completely different strategies based on long or short game types, and in 10 point games the white tile that gives a free pyramid level at night seems ridiculously strong. I've not lost yet with it, and every game I'm able to easily max all three pyramids. The best short game strategy seems to be rush for beetle (start red at 2, level up, pray, buy beetle) and then just be really aggressive with it. Add in Phoenix for late game pyramid steals and you're almost unstoppable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Now THAT is broken. Jesus. You say that tile is broken like it's easy to hold two temples
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Sloober posted:You say that tile is broken like it's easy to hold two temples I think getting VP from multiple temples is probably the worst way (in terms of strategy) to get points in Kemet. You are setting yourself up to lose one or both temples, so unless you have very particular circumstances that ensure you can keep the two for a turn or more (DI cards, maybe?), you are better off attacking. Double points still probably doesn't even make it ok, since then you are DEFINITELY handing permanent VP to one or two people when they kick you out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Big Ol Marsh Pussy posted:All this talk is really making me hate the fact that everyone I've tried to play Kemet with hates it solely because they can not wrap their head around the idea of winning a battle while still losing more troops than the loser That's such a thing that we even has a specific word for it, Pyrrhic victory. Have these people never heard of king Pyrrhus of Epirus and his retarded strategies? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
My experience trading in Catan is that everyone is short the same resource (like wheat) because everyone keeps rolling sheep numbers so everyone keeps offering to trade sheep for wheat which nobody wants because everyone needs wheat and oh my God this terrible game is taking forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Also there's the promo tile that awards double permanent VPs for controlling two temples, if you have that. I thought it was the ability to get a (single) permanent VP from controlling just one temple? And presumably not also get a point for controlling two+.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:That's such a thing that we even has a specific word for it, Pyrrhic victory. Have these people never heard of king Pyrrhus of Epirus and his retarded strategies? It doesn't even have to be a Pyrrhic victory. The allies suffered higher causalities than the Germans at Normandy but didn't lose the war because of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:It doesn't even have to be a Pyrrhic victory. The allies suffered higher causalities than the Germans at Normandy but didn't lose the war because of it. Or the entire Soviet strategy in world war two, which was "we have more mans, so who cares if only one in ten gets a kill". It's basic warfare really, whoever achieves their objective is the winner, not whoever loses the least troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
And Grant in the Wilderness, and countless other times in history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Had a weird experience today. We were playing a 6p game of History of the World. End game (last round), me and another player were trailing behind, and a third player (X) was halfway between us and the three leaders. I drew a bad nation (Holland) and opted to hand it to X. As soon as X revealed his nation, everyone started to accuse me of kingmaking the current leader. I could understand that the guys in second and third place would react this way, but even the player behind me was miffed, to put it lightly. I don't understand their response. For me, the relevant play was to try and catch up to X, so that's why I gave him a bad nation. The other players vehemently disagreed. I tried to explain it to them in the following way: imagine you're playing 3p Carcassonne and you're third in points, with little hope of catching up to the leader but some hope of becoming second. There are about two or three tiles per player left in the stack. You draw a tile that can screw up someones large city. Both opponents have such a city. Do you mess up the middle guys plans? Or the leader? I chose to screw the middle guy as that gives me the best chance at second rank. To me, that is the opposite of kingmaking. They didn't agree. Am I way off base here? Sanity check my reasoning please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
theroachman posted:Am I way off base here? Sanity check my reasoning please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
So it's a Kingmaking no matter what you do. If you don't hurt the leader, you're making them king. If you hurt the leader, you're making someone else king. So they can just deal with it. If they wanted to win maybe they shouldn't have relied on you to help them. The last place player is just bitter and wanted to get a morale victory over you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
There's an interesting conundrum about what to do if it's clear you can't "win" the game any more, especially if the game has elements of targeted chip-taking. One school of thought is to aim for the best ranking possible for yourself (thus really cementing the current leader's victory), while the other is to try to get the smallest difference (by some absolute metric) between yourself and the winner, regardless of where the other players ended up (which is more likely to be overtly kingmaking by loving the leader and letting second place overtake them). The real solution is to not play games with strong chip-taking elements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:And Grant in the Wilderness, and countless other times in history. From what I've seen on the Civil War Trust's Animated Maps, that's not completely accurate. Also, how long does P500 take? It feels like A Distant Plain, 2nd Printing has been "In Art and Final Development" for months now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:My experience trading in Catan is that everyone is short the same resource (like wheat) because everyone keeps rolling sheep numbers so everyone keeps offering to trade sheep for wheat which nobody wants because everyone needs wheat and oh my God this terrible game is taking forever. Play with a d12 instead of 2d6 so everyone doesn't crowd around the 6/8 sheep hex. Just kidding, play a different game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Everyone with a screwed up copy of Tash-Kalar Nethervoid or Galaxy Trucker Missions should go here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uZ1yHF1CaQxBjnsX7yTkjKwUfyUUKBmwm0ujJiIKE9E/viewform?c=0&w=1 to get replacement parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Electric Hobo posted:Everyone with a screwed up copy of Tash-Kalar Nethervoid or Galaxy Trucker Missions should go here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uZ1yHF1CaQxBjnsX7yTkjKwUfyUUKBmwm0ujJiIKE9E/viewform?c=0&w=1 to get replacement parts. If only CGE were responsible for Mage Knight. theroachman posted:Am I way off base here? Sanity check my reasoning please. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, but if I'm in a kingmaking position, I usually dick over the player who dicked me the most in the game. Politics are a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Setting up my Christmas shopping and my partner digs carcasonne - which expansions should I nap? We already have the ones with the builder and the pigs and the abbot piece.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
quote:Also, how long does P500 take? It feels like A Distant Plain, 2nd Printing has been "In Art and Final Development" for months now. I'm not sure exactly why I want this game so bad - I'm unlikely to get many plays in - but I'm on the P500 list for it and still check EBay now and again. They listed it in their September newsletter as Jan/Feb 2016. I don't know exactly how GMT works, but I think there's probably a couple more months after "production" to "actually shipping". So maybe April 2016 or so?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
theroachman posted:
Kingmaking is any time a player that has no chance of winning alters the relationship between two players competing more closely to win. Since your friends' scrub attitudes will prevent them from ever being winners, you were not kingmaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
theroachman posted:Had a weird experience today. We were playing a 6p game of History of the World. End game (last round), me and another player were trailing behind, and a third player (X) was halfway between us and the three leaders. I drew a bad nation (Holland) and opted to hand it to X. As soon as X revealed his nation, everyone started to accuse me of kingmaking the current leader. I could understand that the guys in second and third place would react this way, but even the player behind me was miffed, to put it lightly. I don't understand their response. For me, the relevant play was to try and catch up to X, so that's why I gave him a bad nation. The other players vehemently disagreed. Screwing the leader when you have no chance to win is kingmaking for sure. Kingmaking is a situation you are in, not a choice you make. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't and you can't make everyone happy. They can suck it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
General opinion on Forge War is that it's good, right? My game store just got a copy in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:13
|
|
